Monday, January 31, 2011

Of all the articles I've written for the Spearhead, my personal favorite is Avoiding the Fate of the AMC. For those who've not read that article, AMC stands for Average Married Chump.

This is because just about everything contained in that article is based on my own experiences and escape from that sackless state of pathetic beta-tude. I was the Average Married Chump, and I nearly became the divorced and broken chump because of it.

Of course, when I sit back and take stock of my life and the path I have followed, I see some things in a much different perspective than how I did when I was an AMC.

The biggest transformation I've endeavored to undertake is to live my life according to this Hawaiian concept called Pono. Roughly translated, it means righteous. It's become my favorite question I pose to myself when I'm confronted with a situation that requires a choice I have to make with regards to how I react or respond in my interactions with not just my wife, but with all people. What is the path of pono?

I've come to realize the key to this philosophy is total honesty...honesty tempered with discretion of course. As I wrote back in the AMC article for the Spearhead, while quoting Roissy:

* Do NOT be afraid of her emotional state. She is a woman, and emotional instability is simply how she is designed. As Roissy stated so eloquently in his The 16 Commandments of Poon:

You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.

Striving to live an honest existence is one of the keys to self-mastery.

When I was an AMC, I was a liar. A dishonest weasel. I lied all the time. Most all of it was so-called "white lies." And it wasn't just in relation to my wife, but with my peer group, my work-place colleagues and school classmates...everyone.

This was because I lived my life afraid to upset other people. I tried to always find what I mistakenly thought of as the path of least resistance. To use dishonesty to avoid conflict. For instance, if I were invited to participate in something I did not care to, I would scramble for a convenient excuse -- A LIE -- instead of being honest and straightforward and saying, "no thanks, I'm not interested in doing that."

The real problem with that is when you spin webs of deceit, you eventually get tangled up and caught. It is inevitable if your whole social life is based on trying to avoid upsetting people by lying to them. And from the perspective of the woman you are having a relationship with, it is the ultimate respect-killer.

This is the path of beta-ization. You want to be an alpha? Than learn how to live your life with absolute, unapologetic honesty. As I wrote earlier though, being honest doesn't mean you have to tell everyone everything. Circumspect discretion is the easiest means of maintaining a code of living honestly.

One of the reasons why I'm writing this post, is because of an experience I had this past weekend caused me to ruminate extensively on this topic. A long time friend of mine is getting married, and Saturday night was his bachelor party. Several of my married friends attended the event. While we were socializing, I asked one of my friends (who I know is definitely an AMC) if his wife knew that he was at this bachelor party. Since he lives in fear of his wife's emotional state, and she obviously wears the pants in his household, I already knew the answer, but I pursued the line of questioning to try and help him see the error of his ways. He had lied and told her that he was going to a family members house. He was afraid that she would be upset that he was attending a bachelor party with strippers entertaining. I told him he should have been honest with her and came to the bachelor party even if she expressed disapproval and was upset. He looked at me with sheer disbelief and asked if my wife knew where I was.

I laughed and told him my wife knows exactly where I'm at and what I'm doing. He couldn't comprehend having a relationship like that. It's called unapologetic honesty. And my friend? He got away with his lie...until pictures from the party got posted on Facebook and his wife saw him. He's now in the doghouse and going through the hellish torment of being an AMC. The root of his troubles was believing that being dishonest would make things easier for his relationship. By operating out of the fear that his wife would be upset that he wanted to go to our friend's bachelor party, he ended up upsetting her far worse than if he had simply told her the truth and attended the party over her objections. I think he's currently sleeping on the couch.

Take the old axiom to heart - honesty IS the best policy. If you can't be honest about something, than you probably shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

Friday, January 28, 2011

This post is gonna be a long one...but that's because I'm trying to offer a synopsis of close to a decade-worth of blogging by a man who goes by the moniker Texas Arcane.

I recently discovered his rather interesting blog, VaultCo., last week. I've essentially read most of his archives, and came away with a rather troubled mind while trying to comprehend the big picture that this blog paints regarding the near future for our planet and civilization.

Before I delve into the details, I'm going to outline the general premise of what this blogger calls "The Apocalypse Trifecta."

It may sound crazy.
It may sound fantastic and impossible.
But before you dismiss it out of hand, you probably should read a little bit more on the following topics:

* Global Warming is so much more than a hoax and a lie. It is in fact a worldwide ploy of deception to keep the masses of people distracted from the REAL climate change issues we will all be facing in the coming years.

* And that climate change is not Warming, but in fact the commencement of another Ice Age. According to reports he offers copious links to, the Earth's climate is completely driven by cycles of Solar activity, and that according to scientists that study the sun, our life-giving star at the heart of our solar system is moving into a lower activity phase. When this happens, we get an ice age. When it picks up activity, we have a warmer climate. We are at the end of the most recent warming period, and are on the cusp of the next ice age.

* Governments and elite wealthy around the world are all in on the deliberate misdirection in getting everyone to worry about Global Warming. While everyone is worried about Warming, those in the know are preparing for Cooling. Building shelters and stockpiling food and supplies.

* With the advent of a new ice age, the current system of global food production and distribution will literally collapse, the price of energy to heat up an increasingly colder world will skyrocket, and nations will begin to push to the brink of war as basic resources become scarce. With most of the world's food system dependent on corporate agriculture, much of these crops the world depends on will not be able to grow when the climate changes become drastic.

* Another effect of the change in the Sun's activity is the possible movement of the Earth's magnetic poles. This may explain why there have been reports of mass animal deaths all over the world in the last month. Many of these animals are migratory species that use the magnetic poles to guide their migration patterns. The poles have begun shifting, causing many of these animals to get lost in migration, and fail to find food or warmer climates because they went off course, and have begun dying en mass when they find themselves where there is no food or warmer conditions than they can handle.

* Along with the change of the magnetic poles, also comes increased volcanic activity. So-called "super" volcanoes that have lain dormant for thousands of years are waking up and showing signs of coming eruptions.

* Like the reports of Krakatoa's explosion in 1883, one of these super volcanoes eruption will put so much ash into the climate, the sun will be blocked out for months, killing any remaining crops that may have survived the rapidly cooling planet. Furthermore, the ash filled skies will cool the planet even quicker than the natural cooling effects of the sun cycle, essentially jump starting the next ice age.

* With a crash in food supplies and access to energy to survive the rapidly cooling planet, countries will resort to war over what little resources remain.

* Millions of people will die of starvation, war and freezing temperatures.

* This may explain why there have been so many reports of the Government creating FEMA camps, and running all sorts of training exercises in which the troops are preparing to deal with massive civil unrest in the homeland. This may also explain why past US Presidents have signed all sorts of executive orders giving the President the power to suspend the Constitution and declare martial law. When the earth begins rapidly cooling, and volcanic eruptions black out the skies, dropping temperatures even quicker, and destroyed crops resulting in food shortages, combined with the already escalating economic crises will result in a mass of rioting civilians desperate for food. The FEMA camps are the Governments preparation for the coming events.

In summary, the Apocalypse Trifecta will be Climate Change, Economic Collapse and War.

Sounds crazy?

Here are the links to mainstream articles that bolster each piece of the puzzle that blogger Texas Arcane has put together to make a case that supports the coming Apocalypse Trifecta.

The first link requires a careful reading...it's an older article from 2004. When it first came out, the entire "global warming is real/global warming is a fraud" debate was quick to seize on this article for political pandering on both sides.

Note that every reference to the Pentagon's report, refers to CLIMATE CHANGE...NOT Global Warming.

The report begins:

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defense chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

If the global catastrophe is supposedly going to be caused by global "warming," why would Britain be "plunged into a Siberian climate by 2020?"

The rising seas, is supposed to be explained by the melting glaciers all over the world, right? Except that's not what is going on. The glaciers are actually growing....yet this will still result in rising seas. Think of a glass of water for which you add new ice cubes to it...what happens to the water level as you add more and more ice?

In other words, increasedglaciers will cause the seas to rise and planet-wide cooling!

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

Here's the first clue - the Bush Administration repeatedly denied that GLOBAL WARMING DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY exists...not climate change. But the Al Gore, left-wing environmentalist contingent seized on this report to score political points against Bush and the GOP, thereby allowing a report like this to be published...yet largely ignored as most of the people who read it will automatically default to their partisan indoctrination and be contained entirely in the Global Warming debate.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Global Warming would supposedly cause upheaval for millions living along coastlines...but major food production could still occur in a warming climate. Hell, if there really is a so called "greenhouse" effect, growing more food should be easier. But not if the real problem of climate change really means global cooling!

Does this scenario sound crazy beyond belief? Follow these links and decide for yourself -

BY GERALD E. MARSHCHICAGO — Contrary to the conventional wisdom of the day, the real danger facing humanity is not global warming, but more likely the coming of a new Ice Age. What we live in now is known as an interglacial, a relatively brief period between long ice ages. Unfortunately for us, most interglacial periods last only about ten thousand years, and that is how long it has been since the last Ice Age ended. How much longer do we have before the ice begins to spread across the Earth’s surface? Less than a hundred years or several hundred? We simply don’t know.Even if all the temperature increase over the last century is attributable to human activities, the rise has been relatively modest one of a little over one degree Fahrenheit — an increase well within natural variations over the last few thousand years. While an enduring temperature rise of the same size over the next century would cause humanity to make some changes, it would undoubtedly be within our ability to adapt. Entering a new ice age, however, would be catastrophic for the continuation of modern civilization. One has only to look at maps showing the extent of the great ice sheets during the last Ice Age to understand what a return to ice age conditions would mean. Much of Europe and North-America were covered by thick ice, thousands of feet thick in many areas and the world as a whole was much colder. The last “little” Ice Age started as early as the 14th century when the Baltic Sea froze over followed by unseasonable cold, storms, and a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea. That was followed by the extinction of the Norse settlements in Greenland and the loss of grain cultivation in Iceland. Harvests were even severely reduced in Scandinavia And this was a mere foreshadowing of the miseries to come.

On the Magnetic Pole Reversal and the recent mass animal die-offs all over the planet:

Along with the magnetic pole reversals will come increased volcanic activity...and one of those super-volcanoes that has been dormant for over 600,000 years has been changing dramatically these past few years...

It would explode with a force a thousand times more powerful than the Mount St Helens eruption in 1980.

Spewing lava far into the sky, a cloud of plant-killing ash would fan out and dump a layer 10ft deep up to 1,000 miles away.

Two-thirds of the U.S. could become uninhabitable as toxic air sweeps through it, grounding thousands of flights and forcing millions to leave their homes.
On the verge of a catastrophe? Yellowstone National Park's caldera has erupted three times in the last 2.1million years and scientists monitoring it say we could be in for another eruption.

This is the nightmare that scientists are predicting could happen if the world’s largest super-volcano erupts for the first time in 600,000 years, as it could do in the near future.

Yellowstone National Park’s caldera has erupted three times in the last 2.1million years and researchers monitoring it say we could be in for another eruption.

They said that the super-volcano underneath the Wyoming park has been rising at a record rate since 2004 - its floor has gone up three inches per year for the last three years alone, the fastest rate since records began in 1923.

Next week, next month, next year, it's not a question of if, only when.
One day you'll wake up - or you won't wake up, rather - buried beneath nine stories of snow. It's all part of a dependable, predictable cycle, a natural cycle that returns like clockwork every 11,500 years.

. . . And since the last ice age ended almost exactly 11,500 years ago . . .

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

Most of the long-term climate data collected from various sources also shows a strong correlation with the three astronomical cycles which are together known as the Milankovich cycles. The three Milankovich cycles include the tilt of the earth, which varies over a 41,000 year period; the shape of the earth’s orbit, which changes over a period of 100,000 years; and the Precession of the Equinoxes, also known as the earth’s ‘wobble’, which gradually rotates the direction of the earth’s axis over a period of 26,000 years. According to the Milankovich theory of Ice Age causation, these three astronomical cycles, each of which effects the amount of solar radiation which reaches the earth, act together to produce the cycle of cold Ice Age maximums and warm interglacials.

What about the increase in C02 in the atmosphere that has got so many people convinced the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is occurring? The increasing C02 may in fact be nothing more than a natural occurence that happens on a cyclical basis every time the Earth goes into another ice age.

The graph of the Vostok ice core data shows that the Ice Age maximums and the warm interglacials occur within a regular cyclic pattern, the graph-line of which is similar to the rhythm of a heartbeat on an electrocardiogram tracing. The Vostok data graph also shows that changes in global CO2 levels lag behind global temperature changes by about eight hundred years. What that indicates is that global temperatures precede or cause global CO2 changes, and not the reverse. In other words, increasing atmospheric CO2 is not causing global temperature to rise; instead the natural cyclic increase in global temperature is causing global CO2 to rise.

The reason that global CO2 levels rise and fall in response to the global temperature is because cold water is capable of retaining more CO2 than warm water. That is why carbonated beverages loose their carbonation, or CO2, when stored in a warm environment. We store our carbonated soft drinks, wine, and beer in a cool place to prevent them from loosing their ‘fizz’, which is a feature of their carbonation, or CO2 content. The earth is currently warming as a result of the natural Ice Age cycle, and as the oceans get warmer, they release increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.

Because the release of CO2 by the warming oceans lags behind the changes in the earth’s temperature, we should expect to see global CO2 levels continue to rise for another eight hundred years after the end of the earth’s current Interglacial warm period. We should already be eight hundred years into the coming Ice Age before global CO2 levels begin to drop in response to the increased chilling of the world’s oceans.

The Vostok ice core data graph reveals that global CO2 levels regularly rose and fell in a direct response to the natural cycle of Ice Age minimums and maximums during the past four hundred and twenty thousand years. Within that natural cycle, about every 110,000 years global temperatures, followed by global CO2 levels, have peaked at approximately the same levels which they are at today.

Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

The AGW theory is based on data that is drawn from a ridiculously narrow span of time and it demonstrates a wanton disregard for the ‘big picture’ of long-term climate change. The data from paleoclimatology, including ice cores, sea sediments, geology, paleobotany and zoology, indicate that we are on the verge of entering another Ice Age, and the data also shows that severe and lasting climate change can occur within only a few years. While concern over the dubious threat of Anthropogenic Global Warming continues to distract the attention of people throughout the world, the very real threat of the approaching and inevitable Ice Age, which will render large parts of the Northern Hemisphere uninhabitable, is being foolishly ignored.

One aspect of the New World Order Conspiracy theories that arouse so much debate and disbelief is the idea that the power elite plan to commit genocide to reach their stated goal, as carved into the Georgia Guidestones, is to "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."

Given the current population is estimated to be approaching 7 billion, many conspiracy theorists have guessed that the power elite are planning a genocidal culling to reduce humanity to those "maintenance numbers."

Perhaps, the real conspiracy is that these people know we are due for catastrophic climate change and the wars they will effect, and they have been preparing to survive the changes while most of us die out.

Anyhow...do I really believe this theory?

I'm not sure, but it sounds entirely plausible, given that the Earths history is full of catastrophic events. Just because we haven't had a global catastrophe in the annals of recorded human history doesn't mean it can't happen. Afterall, the existence of man is but a blink of an eye in terms of geological time. The planet is full of historical records of these things occurring in cyclical regularity in the past...what makes us think the cycle has stopped?

Monday, January 24, 2011

I recently dropped my cellphone for the 1000th time...and that last one was finally the one that did it. My phone was over 3 years old and it's a virtual dinosaur compared to all the idiot phones everyone has surgically attached to their hands these days.

I called up my local customer service agent in India to see how much a new phone would cost me.

I was treated to a 3 minute "smart" phone sales pitch if I would only sign a 2 year contract extension, plus an activation fee for data services, including unlimited text messaging, email and web surfing.

In short, I could double my current phone bill just so I can carry around an internet connection 24/7.

I told the sales rep in India that I couldn't afford it at that time and cut him off before he could garble out his call center customer service up-selling script response from his computer screen in his Indian accent.

After thinking about it for a awhile, I headed down to the drug store and bought a pre-paid "track" phone sold under the brand of my current cell phone provider for $20. I pulled out the SIM card from my broken phone, slapped it into the new phone, turned it on and laughed out loud.

No 5 mega-pixel camera.
No slide out QWERTY keyboard for "blazing fast texting!"
No 6 gig mp4 player.
No GPS system, or download-able apps.
No hip-hop, rap, rock or country ring tones.

Just a phone.

To make phone calls.

What a novel concept.

See, I've noticed that more and more people everywhere are becoming social media "smart" phone zombies.

At malls, parks, sporting events, concerts, parties, public transportation, bars, restaurants, in traffic, at weddings, funerals and baby birthday parties, I see more and more people looking down at their hand held devices at any given moment, absorbed in their own little cyber-world of disassociated, de-personalized socialization.

I'm sick to death of it.

I see people in the middle of conversations at parties, or meals at public restaurants interrupt the living breathing person in front of them, and without even so much as an "excuse me," to look down at one of these idiot phones.

Worse yet, I've been to parties where over half the people are standing around, letting their beverages get warm and conversation is almost non-existant while everyone is tweeting, youtubing, googling, facebooking, blogging, texting, sexting, real-time chatting, online shopping and porn surfing....all for $70 a month of unlimited bandwidth!

I was at a party in Las Vegas the other day, observing a group of people doing just this. And the ones who weren't in the middle of looking at their little obsession boxes, would still neurotically glance down at their devices every minute or so...desperately hoping for a text, or a tweet, or a call, or SOMETHING so they could have the chance to deploy their device and join in on the fun the rest of the party-goers seemed to be so preoccupied with.

It's like watching a bunch of lab rats hitting the lever for the next hit of crack.

Since I had no one to talk to, as I don't have a smart phone of my own, I began to sit in the corner with my beverage and ruminate. One of the memes of the conspiracy theory genre of the internets was the idea that eventually our overlords would have we the Sheeple implanted with RFID chips just like the humane society does with cats and dogs, so that Big Mother would be able to monitor our wherabouts 24/7.

The idea sounds horrific...one for which should the Government come forward and announce that chip implantation of the general populace would begin, I imagine there would be a mass revolt.

Except....who needs to force the people to have a chip implanted in their skin so that their exact GPS coordinates, their interpersonal conversations, their sex fetishes, their relationship status or their general mood could be tracked by an extensive electronic surveillance matrix at any given time...when you can just call them "smart phones" and get people to PAY to carry it with them wherever they go?

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Eumaios commented over at The Solomon Group: "This post is easily in the top 5 best man-o-sphere writings ever."

While I wouldn't say "easily," it's certainly up there...the wisdom of the elders gained from life experiences makes compelling food for thought, and Solomon's sharing of "Old Man Philly's" diatribe on modern women versus a lady like his wife is certainly compelling.

Both of my boys are married to two of the biggest bitches and liars on the planet. Jim is an aeronautical engineer with Boeing, and Tony is a corporate lawyer for Apple. I raised both of them to have balls big enough to handle anything, but these harlots give them hell constantly. Women these days are spoiled and irreverent, and they’re not worth more than a fuck. One of my boys played College football in New York, and the other in Pennsylvania. I taught them to be men, not pussies. But I swear to God these two bitch daughters-in-law of mine have my whole family worked up. They threaten divorce, flirt with other men on the computer, and send those things that are like phone emails [text messages] to other men with words that are inappropriate for a married woman. My sons find them later, but they can’t say anything or they’ll end up in a screaming fight or divorce court.

I told both of my boys that I was disappointed in them for letting women get to them like that, but after I started talking more to those two cunts [yes, the old man really said “cunt”], I realized that even I couldn’t do a thing with them. I mean, it’s crazy. You can’t punch them, but that’s exactly what they need. They need a man to knock the shit out them and then see how independent and feisty they feel. Both of those bitches are worthless, and need to be put in their place. They’re both brats.

I’m glad you two boys are smart enough to see through that mess and deal with these girls they way they deserve. Keep treating them like the rubbish they are unless you want to end up like my two boys.

They're not worth more than a fuck, because that is precisely how the majority of women are raised in our Brave New World Order nowadays. There only value to men is the access they provide to their bodies, just as the only value men have to the women of today is access to their sperm and than their bank accounts.

Old man Philly points out that this is not beauty.

Listen to me. A good woman ages beautifully. When I look at my wife, I see the most gorgeous woman in the universe. Her wrinkled hands got that way by keeping up with my two boys and working hard for them while I was on the road. The lines under her eyes are from years of shedding tears for me when I was at war, and those wrinkles on her brow are from decades of worry for me and my two sons. It was her legs they held on to when they were learning to walk, her lap was where they learned to read, and her breasts were their first nourishment. The first kiss those boys ever received was from her lips, and God willing, my last kiss will be from her lips.

You two don’t know what you’re missing – or maybe you do. But all I know is that she’s as beautiful, desirable, and lovely today as the day I met her, and I wouldn’t trade one second with her for a lifetime of rowdiness with one of those harlots you guys have waiting for you back home.

You two don’t know what beauty is. In a way, I feel sorry for both of you. I’m not getting on your case, because if there’s one thing I’ve learned from my own sons, it’s that women aren’t what they used to be.

It's social engineering deliberately instigated on society at large to control the population.

It's the result of the institutions of Government used to take over the role of inter-generational cultural transmission.

How women used to be?

Women used to be raised in two parent households in which her Father was her authority figure, and her mother her guidance and vocation counselor...and that vocation was home-making.

Women used to be raised by their mothers and grand mothers and aunts to become the heart of their homes. Yes, they would depend on their husbands for their economic provisioning capabilities...but their husbands would depend on them for their familial nurturing capabilities. Both roles require some forms of sacrifice to benefit the singular entity - the family.

The way women (and men) were changed, was the intrusion of the State into the family unit, to replace the means of transmitting cultural values.

Instead of learning how to cook from Mom, they learn how to pick up takeout on the way home from work.

Instead of learning how to sew to make or repair clothing, they learn the joys of going to the shopping mall and whipping out the credit cards to remain relevant to the latest fashions.

Instead of learning how to nurture their husbands to appreciate the sacrifices he makes to provide for the family, she learned to get together with her girlfriends and complain about his personal habits and peculiarities.

Instead of learning about chastity from her mother to save her virginity for her husband so that they will create a strong bond upon consumation, she learns her sexual morality from the television, movies, and gossip magazines and the cult of celebrity and promiscuity that these mass media sources endlessly promote in a myriad of ways.

Instead of learning how to care for her children as they grow up, they learn how to drop them off at school, than daycare, while they go out and seek to take on the provider role for themselves as well.

None of these learned behaviors contribute to the growth of a family unit. Instead, they are merely culture constructs designed to outsource the role of the home-maker to corporations and businesses, so that both the husband and the wife are than free to become human resources for the labor market, to pay for all of the consumables and services that make it possible for two parents to work while other people raise the children...that is until of course the divorce.

Women used to be raised to create long lasting, happy families. Now they are raised to never form them in the first place, or to haphazardly make them and destroy them.

Solomon laments:

I wonder if my former #1 girl or Brooklyn’s wife will ever have a strong Alpha male talk about them the way Philly talked about his wife? I highly doubt it. But once again, a very simple principle is repeatedly ignored by women like this: They can choose to be sexually popular for a few short years in the eyes of every man, or opt for a lifetime of beauty in the eyes of the one man who loves them.

Ignored? More like brainwashed into believing that the lifetime of beauty is boring, unfulfilling and nothing more than oppressed slavery to Patriarchy. Besides, those "few short years" can be extended by plastic surgery, and botox injections.

Beauty isn’t skin deep, and it doesn’t fade. Beauty is not a physical attribute; it’s an aura that is admired by men and women, young and old alike. Beauty is a timeless gift given freely and without hesitation as a birth right to all young women, but very few of them recognize, protect, or cherish it.

Philly’s sermon about his wife is proof that women can age beautifully, but unfortunately, it takes a little grace, class and effort *gasp*, so the modern woman opts for being sexy in lieu of being beautiful. The world is crawling with sexy, ugly women who should not be valued for anything more than whats between their legs – it’s the only thing you can count on out of womankind these days.

NAWALT...there are still women who are raised in stable, two-parent homes with parents who provide the full spectrum of complementary nurturing and provisioning from Father and Mother...but enough of them are that the society at large is on the verge of collapse.

Some women may read this post and think that I'm being unfair or focusing solely on women to blame the entire gender for the current dystopia of our declining civilization.

The reason the focus is deservedly aimed at women-kind is simple: society and civilization can only exist when a cohesive social order is established...and the only way to establish that is to channel the primal force of human sexuality into productive channels. And since women are the gatekeepers of sex, it is female sexuality that needs repressing to create the conditions for civilized society.

You cannot control male sexuality unless you control female sexuality. As long as the social stigmas and economic penalties for irresponsible female sexual behavior are nullified by the State and the culture, civilization will decline.

Patriarchy didn't just control female sexuality...it controlled male sexuality as well. If Men wanted to have sex AND approval from the peers in his community, marriage was the only acceptable means of expressing his sexuality.

This is precisely why the cultural marxists behind feminism based their revolutionary tactics and strategies to attack the role of women in Patriarchal civilization.

Men are not the way they used to be...because feminism caused women to change from the way we used to be.

Since Surfed did the work, I'll do what any good internet cut-and-past blogger does, and make fair use of someone else's labor.

Here are the Roissy’s Maxim’s. i renumbered some of them to give me a better working handle with them. Especially when I pass them off to non-readers of the website. - Surfed

Roissy’s Maxims

Maxim #1a: Women desire men of better quality than themselves.

Maxim #2: Women are turned on by displays of male power.

Maxim #3: Whenever an attractive girl tells you she hates assholes, or describes her experience in the past dating assholes and claims to avoid them now, or recites a laundry list of asshole-y things guys do that she disapproves of, you can bet your weight in gold bricks that she wants you to be an asshole to her.

Maxim #4: Never trust a woman who is missing a sense of humor.

Maxim #6: Never. Make. It. Easy. For. A. Woman.

Maxim #7: Your girl will thank you for your steadfast devotion to your belief in yourself.

Maxim #8: Always assume she is a slut. It helps kick the legs out from under the pedestal you will be tempted to put her on, and it is more often than not true.

Maxim #9: The greater the age difference between the older man and the younger woman, the tighter his game will need to be, barring compensatory attributes (money).

Maxim #10: Marriage is a social mechanism designed to exchange sex for indentured servitude.

Maxim #11: Calling a girl out on her lie accomplishes nothing.

Maxim #12: When the love is gone, women can be as cold as if they had never known you.

Maxim #15: Be narcissistic. There is no greater divergence than that between a woman’s stated disapproval of male narcissism and the rapidity with which she jumps into bed with a male narcissist.

Maxim #16: The two fundamental propositions are male choosiness and female abundance. All alpha males have these two mindsets in common. Corollary: Male choosiness and female abundance do not necessarily have to be true for the strategy of behaving as if they are true to be effective at seduction.

Maxim #17: The alpha male thinks and acts more like a woman than a man in matters of seduction. He understands his adversary’s psychology, and uses it to allay her defenses.

Maxim #18: Never talk about getting into a relationship even if she says that’s what she’s looking for.

Maxim #19: Withholding sex is the tactic of a woman who has already lost. It is mutually assured destruction.

Maxim #20: If a woman says the word “sex” in conversation with you or about you, no matter the context, it means she’s thinking about having sex with you.

Maxim #21: Women are more pliable in the company of competing women.

Maxim #22: You have to make marriage an attractive alternative for MEN — not women — if you want the institution to thrive.

Maxim #23: The vagina tingle is the principal moral code to which women subscribe. All other moral considerations are secondary.

Maxim #24: When in doubt, ask yourself “WWJD?” What Would a Jerk Do? Then do that.

Maxim #25: NO girl wants to be thought she isn’t a special little snowflake.

Maxim #26: Never tell a girl how much you make, even if you’re loaded. In case of marriage, keep separate accounts.

Maxim #27: If you want a wife, stay clear of investing much in girls who constantly remind you they like to have “fun, fun, fun” and “get bored easily”.

Maxim #28: The more experience you have with women, the more you’ll know which women have experience with men: It is the inexperienced beta male who is most often in the dark about a woman’s sexual history and liable to be victimized by it.

Maxim #29: Xenophobia is good for diversity.

Maxim #30: Women will not hold it against you for trying to get into their panties on the first night. In fact, they will respect you more for your boldness and willingness to follow your manly desires.

Maxim #31: If you plan on cheating and subsequently get caught, act like a total dick who did nothing wrong. Your girlfriend will then wonder if it’s something she did.

Maxim #32: Commanding women to do your bidding will give you a bigger beta margin of error when needed.

Maxim #33: Women need to test men for their grace under pressure.

Maxim #34: If she’s hot, why would she bother with online dating?

Maxim #35: Never trust a woman’s advice on how to please women. Her advice is designed for alpha men she already finds attractive and from whom she seeks signals of attainability and commitment.

Maxim #36: A woman’s sex and relationship advice isn’t meant to help men; it’s meant to distract men from what really works to attract women.

Maxim #37: High IQ is no inoculation against beta delusion. If anything, high IQ obstructs clear thinking about women’s nature.

Maxim #38: The longer you are away from seducing new women, the harder it will be to seduce one when you want.

Maxim #39: The worst thing to happen to women in America was women’s suffrage.

Maxim #40: Men are becoming ever bigger betas in their dealings with women. Men are losing the leverage to shape and push women’s child-like and selfishly amoral political opinions in logical, just and long-term oriented directions.

Maxim #41: The definition of Inner Game: Hit on every woman who excites you. Make life uncomfortable for them, not yourself.

Maxim # 42: When a girl signals that she doesn’t enjoy blowjobs or sex, do not spend one second more with her. Your libido is too important to gamble on such a girl.

Maxim #43: In their sexual primes women’s attraction for assholes is at its strongest. You can catch a lot of hungry flies with honey, but shit attracts the most well-fed flies.

Maxim #44: If you get sexually rejected, don’t admit it to yourself, and especially don’t admit it to the girl.

Maxim #45: Women will screech louder the closer your words get to damaging or exposing vulnerabilities in their sexual market value.

Maxim #46: Whenever you hear or read the words “gender”, “gendered”, “gendered norm”, “subtle gender bias”, or “increasingly egalitarian, yet there remains…” know that you are dealing with a leftwing moonbat, blank-slate believing fruitcake who cannot deal with the fact that men and women are biologically different from birth.

Maxim #47: Awareness of a woman’s games is a precision-guided weapon in a man’s arsenal of seduction.

Maxim #48: Respect the momentum.

Maxim #49: The rare older woman-younger man pairing is like a lab experiment gone wrong. It violates the natural order of things, and leaves its practitioners emotionally twisted and in a constant mental race to hyper-rationalize their sub-par mate choice.

Maxim #50: Marriage is no escape from the sexual market and the possibility that you may be outbid by a competitor with higher value.

Maxim #51: For most women, five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta.

Maxim #52: Underneath the veneer of civilized discourse we act in ways that are brazenly self-interested in the short term.

Maxim #53: All kneel before the god of biomechanics, by sword or by surrender.

Maxim #54: When a woman has incentive to lie, she will choose lying over honesty EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Maxim #55: Run for your Life Shit Tests:
BEWARE the classic gun-to-the-head marriage pressure administered by your typical non-descript, rudderless late 20’s/early 30’s woman. When a woman pressures you mercilessly to marry her, bullying to the point of threatening a break up – this is the shit test of ALL shit tests. Treat it as such – If you fail this shit test, you are RUINED. FOR. LIFE.

Maxim #60: Waving a roll of benjamins at a woman will not give her tingles. In fact, it will often do the opposite.

Maxim #73: When a girl emphatically insists she is so over you, she’s never been more into you.

Maxim #21: Betas pay, alphas split, super alphas profit.

Maxim #39: A woman’s standards are like a house of cards: kick out one from the bottom and the whole edifice crashes down.

Maxim #85: As women’s bodies age and weaken, their rationalization hamsters grow bigger and stronger. Eventually, the hamster is powerful enough to take control of all higher order consciousness.

Maxim #87: The more expensive or thoughtful the gift you give a girl, the greater the risk that she will subconsciously begin to think she is too good for you.

Corollary to Maxim #87: If you are dating out of your league, or you are dating a young hot babe in her prime, you should do the exact opposite of what everyone will tell you to do — *don’t* buy her expensive gifts. Be particularly wary of advice from women. No woman in the world is capable of thinking clearly or impartially on the matter of “acceptable” levels of male provisioning. Even old, fat hausfrau hogs will expect mountains of jewels in offerings from men.

Here are some salient points from the article I'd like to highlight, followed by all 10 things that would be different:

Many of those opposed to the Federal Reserve will point to the record $80.9 billion in profits that the Federal Reserve made last year as evidence that they are robbing the American people blind. But then those defending the Federal Reserve will point out that the Fed returned $78.4 billion to the U.S. Treasury. As a result, the Fed only made a couple billion dollars last year. Pretty harmless, eh? Well, actually no. You see, the money that the Federal Reserve directly makes is not the issue. Rather, the "magic" of the Federal Reserve system is that it took the power of money creation away from the U.S. government and gave it to the bankers.

This is the key point...and it was not just to the highest level bankers either. What the Federal Reserve did was institute the system of fiat currency combined with fractional reserve banking which gave the power of money creation to ALL bankers in the Federal Reserve system - hence the criticisms calling it the money creating cartel. From your locally owned bank specific to your community to the big national banks...if they are "FDIC insured" they are a member of the cartel, and they too participate in "creating" money by entering figures into their accounting software with a few keystrokes, creating a debt for which the bankers profit from the interest. This is one of the primary drivers of inflation.

But it's worse than that.

Now, the only way that the U.S. government can inject more money into the economy is by going into more debt. But when new government debt is created, the amount of money to pay the interest on that debt is not also created. In this way, it was intended by the international bankers that U.S. government debt would expand indefinitely and the U.S. money supply would also expand indefinitely.

In theory, the Government could simply abide by the Constitution and begin issuing currency again without paying interest to the Federal Reserve...

Many liberals won't listen because they don't really care about ever paying off the debt, and most conservatives won't listen because they are convinced we can solve the national debt problem if we just get a bunch of "good conservatives" into positions of power, but the truth is that we have such a horrific debt problem because it was designed to be this way from the beginning.

So how would America be different if we could go back to 1913 and keep the Federal Reserve Act from ever being passed? Well, the following are 10 things that would be different if the Federal Reserve had never been created....

#1 If the U.S. government had been issuing debt-free money all this time, the U.S. government could conceivably have a national debt of zero dollars. Instead, we currently have a national debt that is over 14 trillion dollars.

#2 If the U.S. government had been issuing debt-free money all this time, the U.S. government would likely not be spending one penny on interest payments. Instead, the U.S. government spent over 413 billion dollars on interest on the national debt during fiscal 2010. This is money that belonged to U.S. taxpayers that was transferred to the U.S. government which in turn was transferred to wealthy international bankers and other foreign governments. It is being projected that the U.S. government will be paying 900 billion dollars just in interest on the national debt by the year 2019.

#3 If the U.S. government could issue debt-free money, there would not even have to be a debate about raising "the debt ceiling", because such a debate would not even be necessary.

#4 If the U.S. government could issue debt-free money, it is conceivable that we would not even need the IRS. You doubt this? Well, the truth is that the United States did just fine for well over a hundred years without a national income tax. But about the same time the Federal Reserve was created a national income tax was instituted as well. The whole idea was that the wealth of the American people would be transferred to the U.S. government by force and then transferred into the hands of the ultra-wealthy in the form of interest payments.

#5 If the Federal Reserve did not exist, we would not be on the verge of national insolvency. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that U.S. government debt held by the public will reach a staggering 716 percent of GDP by the year 2080. Remember when I used the term "debt spiral" earlier? Well, this is what a debt spiral looks like....

#6 If the Federal Reserve did not exist, the big Wall Street banks would not have such an overwhelming advantage. Most Americans simply have no idea that over the last several years the Federal Reserve has been giving gigantic piles of nearly interest-free money to the big Wall Street banks which they turned right around and started lending to the federal government at a much higher rate of return. I don't know about you, but if I was allowed to do that I could make a whole bunch of money very quickly. In fact, it has come out that the Federal Reserve made over $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks, large financial institutions and other "friends" during the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009.

#7 If the Federal Reserve did not exist, it is theoretically conceivable that we would have an economy with little to no inflation. Of course that would greatly depend on the discipline of our government officials (which is not very great at this point), but the sad truth is that our current system is always going to produce inflation. In fact, the Federal Reserve system was originally designed to be inflationary. Just check out the inflation chart posted below. The U.S. never had ongoing problems with inflation before the Fed was created, but now it is just wildly out of control....

#8 If the Federal Reserve had never been created, the U.S. dollar would not be a dying currency. Since the Federal Reserve was created, the U.S. dollar has lost well over 95 percent of its purchasing power. By constantly inflating the currency, it transfers financial power away from those already holding the wealth (the American people) to those that are able to create more currency and more government debt. Back in 1913, the total U.S. national debt was just under 3 billion dollars. Today, the U.S. government is spending approximately 6.85 million dollars per minute, and the U.S. national debt is increasing by over 4 billion dollars per day.

#9 If the Federal Reserve did not exist, we would not have an unelected, unaccountable "fourth branch of government" running around that has gotten completely and totally out of control. Even some members of Congress are now openly complaining about how much power the Fed has. For example, Ron Paul told MSNBC last year that he believes that the Federal Reserve is now more powerful than Congress.....

"The regulations should be on the Federal Reserve. We should have transparency of the Federal Reserve. They can create trillions of dollars to bail out their friends, and we don’t even have any transparency of this. They’re more powerful than the Congress."

#10 If the Federal Reserve had never been created, the American people would be much more free. We would not be enslaved to this horrific national debt. Our politicians would not have to run around the globe begging people to lend us money. Representatives that we directly elect would be the ones setting national monetary policy. Our politicians would be much less under the influence of the international banking elite. We would not be at the mercy of the financial bubbles that the Fed has constantly been creating.

Friday, January 7, 2011

On the piece I did regarding veganism, I tried to point out that the history of veganism in the US was largely the efforts of Kellogs, the man who invented breakfast cereal. He was a seventh day adventist and his veganism was based on his faith...not the scientific facts of which diet is best suited for the human physiology.

Seems like in the vegan community, the faith is still pretty strong...even when there is scientific evidence that demonstrates just how mistaken certain vegans may be when it comes to the health effects of their chosen belief system.

The problem for many vegans, is that the most convincing arguments against veganism are now coming from ex-vegans, many of whom were dedicated vegans, until health problems associated with their diets made them reach the point of re-evaluation. Once they give up their vegan principles and begin to eat meat and other animal products, many experience a resurgence in good health.

But the latest ex-vegan that has literally been destroying vegan arguments on the interwebs in 2010, is one, Denise Minger.

She's got the true believers utterly flummoxed..and for good reason.

She gained notoriety in the paleo/ex-vegan blogosphere when she turned her meticulous researcher's eye onto the research that has been considered the holy grail of veganism: Dr. Colin Campbell's The China Study.

While many others have pointed out that Campbell's conclusions were flawed because they were based on cherry picking the data from 7 countries -- when the stats were gathered from more than 20 -- to reach his subjective and pre-determined conclusion that veganism was the healthiest diet for humans, Denise actually waded through the research and went on to painstakingly show that Campbells support for veganism as the healthiest diet was based on far more deceptions and misrepresentations than simply just cherry picking his data.

Her initial case was so compelling, Campbell himself actually deigned to respond to her. She responded, and essentially cleaned his clock, causing he and his followers to cease trying to debate with her.

But her latest blog post goes even further, by taking on one of the biggest shibboleths promoted in our mainstream mass media culture today: the idea that meat and saturated fats clog the arteries and cause heart disease.

Sometimes, when I feel like I don’t have enough stress in my life and start craving a blood-pressure boost, I go to my old vegan haunts to read gems like these:

The only way meat can be digested is by putrefaction, our stomach acid is only 5% of that of a carnivore or omnivore so instead of being digested it basicly [sic] rots in your intestines which leaves toxic gases and waste to be absorbed into the blood.

we know what’s happening. we’ve known for decades. however, we also have found that when we talk about the health detriments associated with eating the products of the corpse industries, people don’t believe us.

[T]here is a single, sole cause to heart disease: cholesterol. If your total cholesterol is below 150 and LDL is below 70, you are essentially heart attack proof. What is the cause of high cholesterol? Saturated fat and animal products.

Don’t you love this stuff? But I digress. What I want to talk about right now is one of the most oft-cited perks of being a vegetarian: an apparently lower risk of heart disease compared to omnivores.

I remember when I used to believe all of those things steadfastly...and I wasn't even a vegan. I was more accurately a guilt-consumed meat eater that would go on vegetarian binges. I'd abstain from meat and dairy for days on end, because I believed those lies. And it certainly didn't make my health better for it.

This is a trend that some folks translate as “meat causes heart disease”—a sentiment I saw plastered all over the veggie message boards during my most recent lurking spree. I assume this belief is bolstered by all the perfectly-preserved chunks bacon found in meat eaters’ arteries during heart biopsies.

Studies on vegetarians are inherently tricky. Although some folks dump animal foods strictly for ethical reasons, many of the meatless eat their veggies alongside other pro-health behaviors like exercising more, nixing tobacco, swapping refined grains for whole, limiting processed food (soy Frankenmeats notwithstanding), and avoiding the biggest of the baddies (trans fats, corn syrup, Cadbury Creme Eggs, and pretty much everything on this site)."

What does all of that equal? Confounderville for researchers. It’s impossible to adjust for every little diet and lifestyle tweak a vegetarian makes in the name of health, so in scientific studies, vegetarians almost always have an advantage over health-indifferent omnivores. But the reason can’t be pegged on their meatlessness: Vegetarianism is a marker for a comprehensive shift in behaviors that influence disease risk.

No kidding, especially when you consider that an obese Wal-Martian who eats fast food at every meal is lumped in with the health-fanatic, paleo-atheletes under the category of "Omnivore."

Denise goes on to breakdown the data, and come to the following conclusion:

The significance of this study is that it underscores the major issue with vegetarian research at large: The health-protective effects of vegetarianism are probably due to factors other than meat avoidance. When you study vegetarians that aren’t partaking in a bigger diet and lifestyle change, they no longer have a glowing health report.

--Snip--

There’s nothing about eating meat that requires someone to inhale sugar and eat less fresh produce—but because meat (with all that awful saturated fat and cholesterol) has been so vilified in the nutrition world, the folks who eat more of it are likely to be less health-conscious than those who opt for the tofu slab. That’s why patterns like these emerge: Eating less meat goes hand-in-hand with other health-promoting choices, so we often see vegetarians trumping omnivorous control groups in terms of health markers.

This is just another example of how the supposed science used to promote lies and misconceptions like a plant-based diet is healthiest for humans.

I wonder if this latest post will attract more anonymous vegan commenters that deride me and my fellow Hawaiians for our love of Spam?

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

In 1969, 4 men in an unknown, British, working-class Blues band saw a long line of people outside the cinema, waiting to see a Boris Karloff horror film entitled Black Sabbath. Realization struck their stoned-out minds that people were lining up to pay to get the crap scared out of them.

They changed their band name to the aforementioned movie title, and started writing horror-movie inspired lyrics set to dark, scarier sounding music. Thus, heavy metal music was born.

When I was 13 years old, I found an old, discarded cassette tape of Black Sabbath's second album, Paranoid. From the moment I heard the sirens wailing along with the opening chords to War Pigs, I've become a Sabbath fan for the rest of my life.

One of the highlights of my young adult life was flying to the West Coast to attend the Black Sabbath reunion tour in 2000 with all of the original band members...with Pantera as the opening act. They weren't scheduled to come to Hawaii, and I knew it was a once in a lifetime chance to see one of my favorite bands, and I wasn't disappointed one bit, despite what essentially added up to the most expensive concert I've ever paid to attend when you add in airfare, accommodation and transportation...all while still attending college and money was not easy to come by.

But please excuse my pleasant reminisces.

What inspired this blog post was listening to one of my favorite songs while driving to work the other day. It was a song from their first album, entitled Wicked World.

This young band that deliberately set out to make horror music, wrote a song featuring aspects of life that they thought made it a "wicked world." The first verse mentioned the juxtaposition of blue collar workers trudging off to work just to survive, while people in other countries were counting their dead. The second verse refers to politicians who decide who gets to go and die in wars, and how they use tax money to fund things like space travel to the moon while people are dying of diseases.

These were things young 19-20 year old British men in 1969 thought made up a "wicked world"

But the third verse?

A woman goes to work every day after dayShe just goes to work just to earn her payChild sitting crying by a life that's harderHe doesn't even know who is his father

In 1969, a fatherless child neglected at home because the mother had to work to support herself and her child was "wicked."

What was once universally considered a social tragedy has now been normalized and accepted. A world that considers working single mom's neglecting their Fatherless children as normal, or even desirable, is a wicked world indeed.